New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Monster 88 lenght?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
After reading the reviews i'm really interested in the Monster 88, but they seem to make only a 164 (that seems too short) and a 175, that seems a little long. I skied the Monster 75 in a 177 and it skied long, was very good at speed but really heavy at lower speeds. Also, SierraJim mentioned that the Monster 77 is probably too much ski for most skiers in a 177. This should be a one quiver ski for the Alps and should also allow me to ski with slower friends (not that i'm very good)
Another option should be the MOJO 90 in a 176 lenght (actually shorter b/c of the twin tip). Suggestions?
post #2 of 16
Can you give us an idea of how big you are (height/weight)?
post #3 of 16
Doesn't the IM 88 come flat? Can't you just mount it a little foward if it feels too long?
post #4 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by psy
After reading the reviews i'm really interested in the Monster 88, but they seem to make only a 164 (that seems too short) and a 175, that seems a little long. I skied the Monster 75 in a 177 and it skied long, was very good at speed but really heavy at lower speeds. Also, SierraJim mentioned that the Monster 77 is probably too much ski for most skiers in a 177. This should be a one quiver ski for the Alps and should also allow me to ski with slower friends (not that i'm very good)
Another option should be the MOJO 90 in a 176 lenght (actually shorter b/c of the twin tip). Suggestions?
The iM88 is lighter underfoot than the Chip 75 was, so it will have a less bulky feel in a 175. The 175 feels very stable for a ski of it's length, it is equivalent to most skis in a 180 or 182 in terms of stability (at least 181 in the Recon, 182 in the AMC79, also a 180cm in the 666 (if they made that length)). The Monster 77 is such a beefy, powerful ski that it can feel bulky in 177 unless you are a big guy. If you are fairly short (under 5 foot 8) or are primarily skiing back east, you may want to downsize to 164 in the iM88, otherwise the 175 works for most people. I have found in the past that skis under 168cm or so tend to send me "over the handlebars" in deep snow, but for a carver, 165cm or so is ideal for myself.
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the replies. I'm 5'9'' and 168-170 (depends what i ate a lunch). I think that the question is about comparing the 88 in a 175 lenght to the 75 and 77 in an 177 lenght.
Dawg, i also felt i was going over the bars on skis that were 168.
You seem to think that the 88 is more user frendly that the 75 or 77? I read your previous post and i'm getting the feeling i would love an 170 Monster 88
post #6 of 16
175's without question. You're the size of everyone I know on that size. They would take a +1cm mount pretty well, but I wouldn't like it.
post #7 of 16
For reference psy, Im the same height and build as you are and I went with a 176 Mojo90.
Its absolutely perfect for what I want;
off piste, powder, trees, and moguls.

If you want more big mountain the 180 whatever it comes it might work too. Of course if you wanted big mountain, i might say look at something else too.
post #8 of 16
I'm 5'10" and 180# and I'm skiing the iM 88 in a 175cm. I wouldn't want the ski to be any shorter. My ski level is around 7 to 8.

However, in the fresh powder last weekend it would have been nice if the ski were a little bit softer in the tip. But I suspect that as my skiing improves, I will want the stiffness of the ski to be right where it is.
post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
OK, i was able to handle the IM75 in a 177 lenght skiing on my own or with other fast skiers. The 88 seems gread i'm just a bit wary it might be too hard going slowly when skiing with slower skiers.
Hmm, it looks like there's no way around demoing!
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by psy
OK, i was able to handle the IM75 in a 177 lenght skiing on my own or with other fast skiers. The 88 seems gread i'm just a bit wary it might be too hard going slowly when skiing with slower skiers.
Hmm, it looks like there's no way around demoing!

I just tired mine out tis past weekend. I found them to be more forgiving than I thought. They worked well at slow speeds, but worked tremendouly well in long fast gs turns.

Great ski, blows my old pocket rocket away.
post #11 of 16
if you weigh 175 and the 177 felt too big,

it's too much ski for you. choose a less demanding ski.
post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierecs7
Great ski, blows my old pocket rocket away.
the PR is a bunch of plastic and foam. naturally the Head skis better!
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by psy
OThe 88 seems gread i'm just a bit wary it might be too hard going slowly when skiing with slower skiers.
if you can't make it turn at slow speeds, you are using poor technique. again, it looks to me like it's WAY too much ski for you. you need something with a softer shovel and more torsional softness.
post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 
Dear Uncle
C'mon on the GEAR forrum trying to suggest that it's the injun and not the arrow? Blasphemy i say!
The problem is finding the ski that is comfortable and fun for me to do everything on. From the reviews it seemd like the 88 is softer in the shovel than the 75 and 77. Right now i think that the mojo 90 is looking like the better option
We'll see
post #15 of 16
psy you will have much more fun if you get a ski that doesn't feel too big or unwieldy at slow speeds.

I weigh only 155 lbs and I have no problems making the 177cm Monster 88 carve small turns at slow speeds.

another 20 lbs and it would be even easier than I find it already.

maybe a bit of technique improvement would help you get more friendly with the Monster 88?

also, consider the Elan M777, which is a bit more forgiving than the Monster 88 but with a similar feel.
post #16 of 16
Oh yeah, if you thought the 177 im85 was not bad but a little big, the 175 im88 will be just right. A bit lighter and livelier, but still very substantial, with incredable performance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews